On 23/03/13 17:11, Graham P Davis wrote:
On Sat, 23 Mar 2013 13:28:46 +0000
Adam wrote:



Missing the point. It is not about snow it is about the duration of
the cold. How long in those examples you give did the cold and snow
last before it got milder again? I can tell you June 1975 was no more
than a freak few days then immediately followed by a heatwave for
starters. How often at this time of year do you get 3+ weeks of
SUSTAINED well below average temperatures with no milder interludes
right down to the south coast and beyond. Can't be very often if you
have to go back to 1987 and then 1963 to find colder Marches.

I go along with what you say but, to be pedantic, March 1963 wasn't
particularly cold (CET 6.0C), 1962 was much colder (2.8C), the 16th
coldest in CET records.


Sorry, I did mean to say March 1962.

On 23/03/13 17:42, willie eckerslike wrote:
On Saturday, March 23, 2013 1:28:46 PM UTC, Adam Lea wrote:
On 23/03/13 09:11, willie eckerslike wrote:

On Saturday, March 23, 2013 8:24:37 AM UTC, Adam Lea wrote:

On 22/03/13 22:11, Lawrence13 wrote:



I'm sitting here typing in SE London with two pullovers on...







And this time last year I was happily wandering around outside in a T



shirt. Your point being?



Why is everyone getting so worked up about this? Have we never experienced snow in March before?



I have photos somewhere of 4 inches of snow in my garden almost covering the flowering tulips. That must have been well into April. The photos were taken sometime in the 1990s but I don't remember the whole country descending into a panic then.



Neither do I remember too much panic when snow covered the cricket pitch in Buxton on 2nd June 1975 and the midday temp at Colchester was 2C.



Maybe you are all watching too many news bulletins from the hysterical TV presenters, and these have rotted the memory?



Missing the point. It is not about snow it is about the duration of the

cold. How long in those examples you give did the cold and snow last

before it got milder again? I can tell you June 1975 was no more than a

freak few days then immediately followed by a heatwave for starters. How

often at this time of year do you get 3+ weeks of SUSTAINED well below

average temperatures with no milder interludes right down to the south

coast and beyond. Can't be very often if you have to go back to 1987 and

then 1963 to find colder Marches.

1986 was a cold February, a below average March, and followed by an almost as cold April.

That is pretty sustained, and May was nothing to write home about either.

And was over 25 years ago.


1996, 2001 and 2006 had weeks of sustained below average temperatures between Jan 1st and Mar 31st.


We are talking about March only, not January and February.

Yes I remember 1996 as being cold right through to at least mid May, the
summer was very good though.

Oddly enough I don't remember March 2006 as being cold, although the CET
confirms it was.

On Saturday, March 23, 2013 6:45:40 PM UTC, Lawrence13 wrote:
On Saturday, 23 March 2013 18:29:12 UTC, willie eckerslike wrote:


Maybe now, people will question the precise data being put into these long range models, before accepting the output as gospel?



Blimey is someone slightly aggreeing with me after all these years?

I have not wholly disagreed with you throughout the years, but I still believe that a proportion of the warming over the last 60 years is due to greenhouse effects.

I just do not believe that until the computer program can be run in reverse and produce a very similar graph to the past, complete with the slight cooling between 1940 and 1980, that any predictions of the future climate can be relied upon.

In article -jade,
Graham P Davis writes:
March 1963 wasn't particularly cold (CET 6.0C), 1962 was much
colder (2.8C), the 16th coldest in CET records.

Yep. Going by what we've had so far and what the models are suggesting
for the rest of the month, we might be close to beating the 1962 figure.
ISTR that if we do that, then it will be the coldest March since the
19th century. A quite remarkable contrast to last March.
--
John Hall
"Madam, you have between your legs an instrument capable
of giving pleasure to thousands and all you can do is scratch it."
Sir Thomas Beecham (1879-1961) to a lady cellist

On Saturday, March 23, 2013 8:27:29 PM UTC, John Hall wrote:
In article -jade,

Graham P Davis writes:

March 1963 wasn't particularly cold (CET 6.0C), 1962 was much

colder (2.8C), the 16th coldest in CET records.



Yep. Going by what we've had so far and what the models are suggesting

for the rest of the month, we might be close to beating the 1962 figure.

ISTR that if we do that, then it will be the coldest March since the

19th century. A quite remarkable contrast to last March.



1947 and 1955 had a cold March.

In article ,
willie eckerslike writes:
On Saturday, March 23, 2013 8:27:29 PM UTC, John Hall wrote:
In article -jade,

Graham P Davis writes:

March 1963 wasn't particularly cold (CET 6.0C), 1962 was much

colder (2.8C), the 16th coldest in CET records.



Yep. Going by what we've had so far and what the models are suggesting

for the rest of the month, we might be close to beating the 1962 figure.

ISTR that if we do that, then it will be the coldest March since the

19th century. A quite remarkable contrast to last March.



1947 and 1955 had a cold March.

They did, but not as cold as 1962 though, by the monthly mean CET
measure. To get a lower March CET than 1962's 2.8C, you have to go back
to 1892, with 2.7C. Checking on Philip Eden's site, for the first 20
days of March the mean CET was running at 3.8°C, so we probably won't
quite break the 1962 figure. That one springlike - almost summerlike -
day that we had early in the month will have had a big impact.
--
John Hall
"Madam, you have between your legs an instrument capable
of giving pleasure to thousands and all you can do is scratch it."
Sir Thomas Beecham (1879-1961) to a lady cellist

On 23/03/13 19:27, willie eckerslike wrote:
On Saturday, March 23, 2013 6:45:40 PM UTC, Lawrence13 wrote:
On Saturday, 23 March 2013 18:29:12 UTC, willie eckerslike wrote:


Maybe now, people will question the precise data being put into these long range models, before accepting the output as gospel?



Blimey is someone slightly aggreeing with me after all these years?

I have not wholly disagreed with you throughout the years, but I still believe that a proportion of the warming over the last 60 years is due to greenhouse effects.

I just do not believe that until the computer program can be run in reverse and produce a very similar graph to the past, complete with the slight cooling between 1940 and 1980, that any predictions of the future climate can be relied upon.


Global climate models have been run on the past climate and can
reproduce the overall trend including the cooling between 1940 and 1960.

On Saturday, March 23, 2013 10:08:10 PM UTC, Adam Lea wrote:
On 23/03/13 19:27, willie eckerslike wrote:

On Saturday, March 23, 2013 6:45:40 PM UTC, Lawrence13 wrote:

On Saturday, 23 March 2013 18:29:12 UTC, willie eckerslike wrote:





Maybe now, people will question the precise data being put into these long range models, before accepting the output as gospel?







Blimey is someone slightly aggreeing with me after all these years?



I have not wholly disagreed with you throughout the years, but I still believe that a proportion of the warming over the last 60 years is due to greenhouse effects.



I just do not believe that until the computer program can be run in reverse and produce a very similar graph to the past, complete with the slight cooling between 1940 and 1980, that any predictions of the future climate can be relied upon.





Global climate models have been run on the past climate and can

reproduce the overall trend including the cooling between 1940 and 1960.

But what about the cooling between 1960 and 1980?

On Saturday, 23 March 2013 22:08:10 UTC, Adam Lea wrote:
On 23/03/13 19:27, willie eckerslike wrote:

On Saturday, March 23, 2013 6:45:40 PM UTC, Lawrence13 wrote:

On Saturday, 23 March 2013 18:29:12 UTC, willie eckerslike wrote:





Maybe now, people will question the precise data being put into these long range models, before accepting the output as gospel?







Blimey is someone slightly aggreeing with me after all these years?



I have not wholly disagreed with you throughout the years, but I still believe that a proportion of the warming over the last 60 years is due to greenhouse effects.



I just do not believe that until the computer program can be run in reverse and produce a very similar graph to the past, complete with the slight cooling between 1940 and 1980, that any predictions of the future climate can be relied upon.





Global climate models have been run on the past climate and can

reproduce the overall trend including the cooling between 1940 and 1960.

Oh really,maybe they just had a blip with the last 15 years then


http://us4.campaign-archive2.com/?u=...e=f4e33 fdd1e

On 23/03/13 22:17, Lawrence13 wrote:
On Saturday, 23 March 2013 22:08:10 UTC, Adam Lea wrote:
On 23/03/13 19:27, willie eckerslike wrote:

On Saturday, March 23, 2013 6:45:40 PM UTC, Lawrence13 wrote:

On Saturday, 23 March 2013 18:29:12 UTC, willie eckerslike wrote:





Maybe now, people will question the precise data being put into these long range models, before accepting the output as gospel?







Blimey is someone slightly aggreeing with me after all these years?



I have not wholly disagreed with you throughout the years, but I still believe that a proportion of the warming over the last 60 years is due to greenhouse effects.



I just do not believe that until the computer program can be run in reverse and produce a very similar graph to the past, complete with the slight cooling between 1940 and 1980, that any predictions of the future climate can be relied upon.





Global climate models have been run on the past climate and can

reproduce the overall trend including the cooling between 1940 and 1960.

Oh really,maybe they just had a blip with the last 15 years then


http://us4.campaign-archive2.com/?u=...e=f4e33 fdd1e

http://www.skepticalscience.com/no-w...n-16-years.htm